alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019280EN.01004601.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/46

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament

(Case T-398/19)

(2019/C 280/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Elena Ornella Paciotti (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### ESTATE OF Joseph L. MANGIARDI, Deceased, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF IRS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-11609.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 12, 2011.

Frank Agostino, Calo Agostino, PC, Hackensack, NJ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Regina S. Moriarty, Richard Farber, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Div., Appellate Sect., Washington, DC, Wiliam J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel-IRS, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MICKLE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Stephan P. Mickle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The estate of Joseph L. Mangiardi appeals the United States Tax Court’s ruling upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s decision to collect the estate’s unpaid federal estate tax liability by levy. The estate argues that the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals abused its discretion when it rejected the estate’s offer to settle that unpaid tax liability, which totaled more than $3 million, for the estate’s remaining assets, worth $700,000. According to the estate, the Office of Appeals abused its discretion because it misapplied the law (1) when it considered the potential to collect more than the offered $700,000 by pursuing assets that had already been transferred to beneficiaries of the estate; (2) by incorrectly valuing those transferees’ liability; and (3) by failing to quantify the amount that the IRS could reasonably expect to collect from those transferees.

After considering the arguments of the parties, we agree with the Tax Court that the IRS Office of Appeals did not abuse its discretion as the estate contends.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Melissa Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Melissa Payner-GregorMelissa Payner-Gregor

Chief Executive Officer

May 10, 2011
# C_2020019EN.01001201.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 10 October 2019 — B. K. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-742/19)

(2020/C 19/15)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B. K.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply even to workers employed in the defence sector and to military personnel who perform guard duty in peace time? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply even to workers employed in the defence sector and to military personnel who perform guard duty in peace time?

| 2. | Do the provisions of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which time spent by workers in the defence sector at their place of work or at some other designated place (but not at home) on stand-by, and time during which military personnel in the defence sector performing guard duty are physically present in barracks but not actually working, is not counted as ‘working time’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which time spent by workers in the defence sector at their place of work or at some other designated place (but not at home) on stand-by, and time during which military personnel in the defence sector performing guard duty are physically present in barracks but not actually working, is not counted as ‘working time’?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
# C_2021019EN.01004602.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-377/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark TC CARL - Earlier national figurative mark CARL TOUCH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 19/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carl International (Limonest, France) (represented by: B. Müller, lawyer)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 (Case R 1826/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carl International and Topcart.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
BLUEFLY, INC.
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick C. Barry,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Patrick C. Barry

Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Bluefly, Inc. and will be retained
by Bluefly, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### SELLECK, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Robert R. Selleck against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

RICH, J., dissents.
exhibit10-1.htm


     

     

     

    
      EXHIBIT 10.1

       

       

       

      December 21, 2009

       

      Richard A. Anderson

      Hythiam, Inc.

      11150 Santa Monica Blvd. #1500

      Los Angeles, CA  90025

       

      Re:  Resignation

       

      Dear Rick:

       

      This letter will serve as my resignation as chief financial
officer of Hythiam, effective Friday, January 15, 2010.

       

      I have decided to accept a senior level position in finance
with a large managed health care company located in Florida.

       

      My experience here at Hythiam over the past three years has
been a great one, as I have experienced and learned so much.  Thanks
for the opportunity that I have had to take part in building something special
here.  Since the healthcare industry is so interconnected, I am sure
that we will connect with each other down the road.  Good luck with
Catasys and the additional contract adoptions that lie ahead.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      
        /s/ MAURICE HEBERT

      

      Maurice Hebert
**Exhibit 10.36****GUARANTY**     This GUARANTY is made as of October 27, 2006 by NOBLE CORPORATION, a Cayman Islands exemptedcompany limited by shares (the “Company”), for the benefit of Thomas L. Mitchell (the “Executive”);WITNESSETH:     WHEREAS, Noble Drilling Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly ownedsubsidiary of the Company (“Noble-Subsidiary”), has entered into an Employment Agreement with theExecutive dated as of the date hereof (the “Employment Agreement”); and     WHEREAS, the Company desires to guarantee the performance by Noble-Subsidiary of itsobligations under the Employment Agreement, and the Board of Directors of the Company hasdetermined that it is reasonable and prudent for the Company to deliver this Guaranty and necessaryto promote and ensure the best interests of the Company and its Members;     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Company hereby irrevocably andunconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the due and punctual performance byNoble-Subsidiary of its agreements and obligations, all and singular, under the EmploymentAgreement. This Guaranty shall survive any liquidation of Noble-Subsidiary or any of itssubsidiaries. This Guaranty shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of theState of Texas.     The obligations of the Company hereunder shall be absolute and unconditional and shall remainin full force and effect until the termination of the Employment Agreement or the completeperformance by Noble-Subsidiary of its obligations thereunder, irrespective of the validity,regularity or enforceability of the Employment Agreement, any change or amendment thereto, theabsence of any action to enforce the same, any waiver or consent by the Executive orNoble-Subsidiary with respect to any provision of the Employment Agreement, the recovery of anyjudgment against Noble-Subsidiary or any action to enforce the same, or any other circumstancesthat may otherwise constitute a legal or equitable discharge or defense of the Company. TheCompany waives any right of set-off or counterclaim it may have against the Executive arising fromany other obligations the Executive may have to Noble-Subsidiary or the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by itsduly authorized officer as of the date first above set forth.         NOBLE CORPORATION           By: /s/ MARK A. JACKSON     Name: Mark A. Jackson    Title: President and CEO  
1
# C_2019295EN.01005801.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/58

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Aita v Parliament

(Case T-436/19)

(2019/C 295/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vincenzo Aita (Campagna, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Compensation Committee and Board of Directors



 EXHIBIT 10.104 
 2010 Long-Term Incentive Equity Grants 
 On December 15, 2009 the
Compensation Committee and Board of Directors approved the long-term incentive equity grants to those individuals set forth below in the amount and upon the terms and conditions set forth below. 
 General Terms of Grant: 
  

	 	*	 	 Form of grant: A combination of stock option and restricted stock unit awards for executive officers and only stock options for non-employee
directors. 


  

	 	*	 	 Vesting: Both the stock option grant and the award of restricted stock units vest equally over a 3 year period. 


  

	 	*	 	 Grant and expiration date: Grant date—December 15, 2009. Expiration date—December 15, 2016.



  

	 	*	 	 Exercise Price for Stock Options: $35.805. 


  

	 	*	 	 Number of stock options and restricted stock units: 


  

							
	 	  	 	  	Stock Option	  	RSU
	 Daniel C. Ustian, Chairman, President and CEO
	  	-	  	91,656	  	18,058
				
	 William A. Caton, formerly Executive Vice
 President and Chief Risk Officer1
	  	-	  	0	  	0
				
	 Terry M. Endsley, formerly Executive Vice
 President and Chief Financial Officer2
	  	-	  	0	  	0
				
	 Andrew J. Cederoth, Executive Vice President
 and Chief Financial Officer
	  	-	  	31,959	  	10,000
				
	 Deepak T. Kapur, President—Truck Group
	  	-	  	31,959	  	6,297
				
	 Pamela J. Turbeville, formerly SVP & CEO
 Navistar Financial Corporation3
	  	-	  	0	  	0
				
	 Steven K. Covey, SVP, General Counsel
 and Chief Ethics Officer
	  	-	  	20,703	  	4,079

 Each Non-Employee Director—4,000 stock options in accordance with their annual stock option
grant. 
  

	1	 Mr. Caton retired from the company effective October 31, 2009. 



	2	 Mr. Endsley passed away on April 14, 2009. 



	3	 Ms. Turbeville retired from the company effective January 31, 2009. 


  

 E-19
# C_2019295EN.01006001.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/60

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Mantovani v Parliament

(Case T-439/19)

(2019/C 295/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Mantovani (Arconate, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019246EN.01003701.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/37

---

Action brought on 27 May 2019 — BV v Commission

(Case T-320/19)

(2019/C 246/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BV (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 September 2018 by which the interest generated on the capital representing his transferred pension rights was not returned to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 September 2018 by which the interest generated on the capital representing his transferred pension rights was not returned to him;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis and of reasoning of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis and of reasoning of the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(6) of the general provisions for the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(6) of the general provisions for the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment in favour of the Union caused by the allocation to the budget of the European Union of the amount deducted in respect of the capital appreciation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment in favour of the Union caused by the allocation to the budget of the European Union of the amount deducted in respect of the capital appreciation.

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, which this
certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the
March 31, 2008 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:
November 14, 2008

| |  |                                                                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH Hal M. Krisbergh Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

---



QuickLinks